1. The Role of Tasting Note Descriptors on Customers’ Pre-Purchase Evaluations of Wine in a Restaurant Setting  
Rob van Ginneken,
NHTV University of Applied Sciences
Alinda Kokkinou
Avans University of Applied Sciences

2. Wine in Restaurant / F&B Operations
Netherlands: 9 % sales mix, 74 % gross margin (Dutch Board for the Hospitality and Catering Industry, 2013)
Some research on communication of wine attributes (grape variety, vintage, provenance, flavours, ....)
providing sensory descriptions of the wine, most often in the form of tasting notes, seems to be an effective way to reduce customers’ perceived risk (Corsi, Mueller and Lockshin, 2012)
Very limited research done into type / wording of tasting note
Durham, Pardoe and Vega-H (2004): sensory descriptors can influence wine sales both positively and negatively. For white wines […] ‘oak’, ‘creamy’, and ‘dry’ had a positive effect on sales, whereas […] ‘body’ and ‘citrus’ was negative. Similarly, for red wines, […] ‘spices’, ‘berry’, and ‘cherry’ were found to have a positive effect on sales, while the effect of the descriptor ‘tannic’ was negative.
Our hypothesis: ‘fanciful’ tasting notes will appeal to customers more than ‘traditional’ ones

3. ‘Traditional’ tasting notes
“[…] we would make a plea for less fanciful terms than those so often found in the popular and trade press. Simplicity and clarity should be the initial goals, but above all all the terms must have recognizable meanings with respect to the sensory evaluation of wines.” (Amerine and Roessler, 1983, p.311 )
Move from paradigms based on notions of class and gender to the pastoral, largely based on the language of fruits and vegetables (Shesgreen, 2003)
F&B practice: compromise between the above two
Operationalised by following WSET® Systematic Approach to Tasting, level 2 (WSET, 2013)
Color, aromas, flavours, mouthfeel descriptors

4. ‘Fanciful’ tasting notes
Traditional note + two non-traditional descriptors + positive finish
Non-traditional descriptors taken from:
“words to avoid” list of Amerine and Roesler,
descriptors from the ‘class’ or ‘gender’ paradigms of Shesgreen

5. Methodology
Scenario-based survey, following the methodological approach applied by McCall and Lynn (2010) to restaurant menu food descriptions.
Respondents were presented with four wines (two whites and two reds), described using either a traditional or a fanciful tasting note.
Two different surveys were created presenting different combinations of wine and tasting note.
The study set out in this paper sought to establish whether consumers have a preference for either style: traditional or fanciful. Dependent variables:
‘how likely would you be to order this wine?’
‘how would you rate the quality of this wine?’
‘how much would you expect to pay for a glass of this wine?’

6. Sample High Street (chain) liquor store patrons
82 respondents (acceptance rate of 63 per cent).
64 per cent male, ages
average spend on a bottle of wine: 6.25 euros
drinking on average 16 glasses of wine per month.

7. Findings
For two of the wines, 1 and 3, a more fanciful type of tasting note increased the appeal of a wine, mainly by increasing its expected quality. However, the results for wines 2 and 4 did not confirm our hypothesis.
Poor operationalision of “fanciful”? We could use your help!

8. Wine 1 –traditional and fanciful
Lemon colour, tropical fruit aromas, some anise; fresh and light on the palate 
Lemon colour, luscious tropical fruit aromas , some anise, refreshing and light on the palate, delightfully lively 

9. Wine 2
Golden colour, medium-bodied, citrus and peach fruit; very balanced wine
Golden colour, medium-bodied, citrus and peach fruit with a touch of flint; very balanced wine with an elegant finish that offers great drinking pleasure.
Too long? This fanciful tasting note was the longest of all (21 words versus 14, 18 and 14); perhaps this made this specific tasting note too long (over the top?) for some of the respondents.
Flint??
‘… great drinking pleasure’ could also have been interpreted by some as referring to a simple, easy-drinking wine, rather than as a token of quality.

10. Wine 3
Ruby colour, ripe red fruit and dark plums; soft tannins, long finish Ruby colour, opulent red fruit and dark plums; meaty tannins, long finish; characterful and confident

11. Wine 4
Light to medium bodied, raspberry fruit aroma and red fruit on the palate, finishing dry.
Light to medium bodied, assertive raspberry fruit aroma and red fruit candy on the palate, finishing crisp and dry.
Childish? Perhaps the addition of the term ‘candy’ led to ‘childish’ associations, reducing participants’ expected quality of the wine.
Not fanciful enough? The term ‘crisp’ could be considered only to be moderately fanciful descriptor for indicating the acidity level.

12. Bibliography
Amerine, Maynard Andrew, and Roessler, Edward B. (1983), Wines: their sensory evaluation. New York: WH Freeman, revised and enlarged edition. Corsi, Armando Maria, Mueller, Simone, and Lockshin, Larry (2012), ‘Let’s See What They Have... What Consumers Look For in a Restaurant Wine List.’ Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53:2, pp Durham, Catherine A., Pardoe, Iain and Vega-H, Esteban (2004), ‘A methodology for evaluating how product characteristics impact choice in retail settings with many zero observations: An application to restaurant wine purchase.’ Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29:1, pp Dutch Board for the Hospitality and Catering Industry (2013), ‘Bedrijfsvergelijking Horeca’. Unpublished research. Zoetermeer, the Netherlands. McCall, Michael, and Lynn, Ann (2008), ‘The effects of restaurant menu item descriptions on perceptions of quality, price, and purchase intention.’ Journal of Foodservice Business Research 11:4, pp Shesgreen, Sean (2003), ‘Wet Dogs and Gushing Oranges: Winespeak for a New Millennium’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 49:26, pB15. 2p. WSET (2013), ‘WSET Level 2 Systematic Approach to Tasting Wine’, Accessed 26 November 2013.

13. Thank you!
Rob van Ginneken

14. MANCOVA results Tasting note Traditional Fanciful Variable Mean
St. Dev.
Wine 1
Likely to Purchase
2.76
1.48
3.50
1.77
White
Quality of Wine
3.53
1.11
4.39
1.44
Expected Price
3.49
0.90
3.98
1.34
Wine 2
4.71
1.38
4.82
1.40
4.89
1.02
5.03
1.00
4.27
1.08
4.22
1.47
Wine 3
5.24
1.28
5.37
1.37
Red
5.06
0.98
5.54
0.89
4.31
4.56
Wine 4
4.37
1.36
3.62
4.47
1.18
3.94
1.43
3.84
1.17
Independent Variable
Wine 1
Wine 2
Wine 3
Wine 4
Type of Tasting note
Sig. (p=.029)
Not Sig. (p=.881)
Sig. (p=.028)
Not sig. (p=.265)
Bottle Price
Sig. (p=.033)
Sig. (p=.001)
Sig. (p=.006)
Not sig (p=.078)
Age
Not sig. (p=.911)
Not sig. (p=.119)
Sig. (p=.036)
Not sig. (p=.439)

15. One-way ANOVAs Dependent Variable Independent Variable Wine 1 Wine 3
Type of Tasting Note
Intention to Purchase
F(1,64)=0.636, p=.428
F(1,64)=1.184, p=.281
Expected Quality
F(1,64)=6.273, p=.015
F(1,64)=7.385, p=.008
Expected Price
F(1,64)=2.030, p=.159
F(1,64)=3.420, p=.069